My Universe, My Rules: Recent Activity
| My Universe, My Rules: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to My Universe, My Rules: (Generated at 2024-04-20 01:11:46)
| My Universe, My Rules: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to My Universe, My Rules: (Generated at 2024-04-20 01:11:46)
Amusingly, in the intervening years they printed Icehide Golem and Arcum's Astrolabe, so if you try really hard it would be possible to get your devotion to snow up to 4 or 5.
...Hang on, this doesn't actually specify what level of devotion is needed. Compare Heliod, Sun-Crowned which asks if "your devotion to white is less than five". So I guess a single Arcum's Astrolabe would mean that you're devoted enough to Snow for this? Maybe that round thing in the middle is an apple.
Yes, and some people (in the design of other card games) suggested having card texts refer to themself in the first person; that would be another alternative, but Magic: the Gathering was not designed like that.
In any case, pay attention to capitalization. Subtypes are always capitalized; that is why I used a subtype in the name, rather than a type.
O, OK, now I understand why you did this.
(Well, it still adds
, and presumably "devoted to snow" means you control a permanent with 
in its mana cost (that is my guess of what it means), so the card still works, it just won't produce any snow mana.)
Yup; jmg already pointed out this card won't work for that reason; and Alex pointed out why it won't for a second reason. So this card fails.
Read
aloud, though; to get the actual reason for the card :)
Myep, that's the same concept. It's kind of odd that wotc are so careful not to use 'target' in names; but then stuck with the wording of "creature-name blah" in rules text, which is already ambiguous if you have two of them in play. (Rather than , you know, "this creature blah")
So yes - this is my silly set; and it's silver border. Which means it does things wrong.
As the rules stand? Nothing, except in combination with one very specific card (which brings back the old mana-burn rule). There isn't even a legal sub-type of 'mana' so you can't bring out a creature this would affect. (Again, silver border says you can have anything as a subtype, though.. so this would interact with a few odd cards that let you make up new creature types.)
The obvious intent would be "Players cannot have mana in their mana pool" or something like that. Which is slightly less ridiculously broken now that it used to be (since casting spells then tapping the mana to pay for it became legal).
But yeah - this set doesn't really do rules; it does "I provoke you into wondering a bit".
Adding snow mana just results in adding colorless mana; the resulting mana isn't snow unless the source is snow. (In other words, "add
" is the same as "add 
", and it is also the same as "add 
". See rules 106.10 and 106.11.)
I made something similar once:
Target Wizard
Tribal Artifact - Wizard ;; 
: Target Wizard gains shroud until end of turn. You gain 3 life. (The text of this ability is ambiguous.)
(It isn't very good, though.)
What does protection from mana do? Mana can't target anything, be attached to anything, block anything (it isn't an object), damage anything, control anything, or own anything.
(Of course if you don't care what it means, or just make up stuff without regard to it, then that is OK. I sometimes also make up Un-cards whose meaning is deliberately unclear, and this card is silver border, so OK.)
Heh. Interacts with Fighting Bolt I guess.
(Darrin is, I think, the name of the missing boy in 7th guest - why it became this card? Better ask, Mister Death.)
Try casting spells now.
Congratulations, Vitenka. This might be the most evil card I've seen designed on this website. ;)
I feel this spell needs to also mill a random amount of cards AND shuffle the collection to make the randomization less cheatable.
Poor apple-seller-cat-slash-pirate-god tibalt's counterspell got me thinking that what we need here is MORE RANDOM. Because that's always the answer.
AlexChurchill: [17:01] What (/where) is it?
ChrisHowlett: [15:41] The RW Legend is not a rabbit.
Obvious joke is obvious.
Conversion Chamber is not a 3/3 for
though...
Inspired by Fervor of the Converted
Was gonna be a 1/1 soldier or something; but then I remembered Conversion Chamber.
The easiest way to implement it in the rules would probably be
> "This spell costs
less to cast if it targets an attacking or blocking creature."
I added an artifact type for books/tomes for custom cards. I wondered whether this was going there.
Should be "when" rather than "if". State-based triggers are the way to go.
Just kinda came up with this while dozing.
Obviously, it needs sensei's top or similar to stop it getting milled. It's probably really underwhelming unless it's a lot cheaper. But, well, 995 just doesn't flow as well.
I kinda wish exile hadn't been renamed - because the other version of this I was thinking of is "If ~ is removed from the game, so are you." Doesn't flow as well with exile. (Though it does co-operate a lot better with zedru)
I mean, maybe we can assume it's an artifact sub-type and this is a parasitic enabler for that deck.
But mainly it's "Wait, why am I drawing cards from a library? I get books from libraries."
So I was thinking about how the whole "Oh, so this is tapping my lands, I guess I float my mana" thing works out in practice - and it's kinda "You can only cast one spell a turn" only not really? But the effect sure as heck is in white's wheelhouse.
So... why not just directly spell out what you get limited to?
Thanks.
.... huh. Source cardset is now hidden. Annoying./
The original inspiration was basically the same card; except red but you could instead cast as white to add a restriction. This way round, paying more to remove the restriction, feels more natural to me.
I like this design. It feels like a white card better in Boros rather than a mono red card that doubles as a mono white card.